I've never been the biggest fan of the first Harry Potter film, but with the chance to see it again on the big screen and with my son (who is currently enjoying the series as a bedtime saga), I thought it was worth the time to check it out and see if time had changed my feelings on it. And the answer? Well, not really...but I'll admit that it's better than I remember. Chris Columbus's direction is still pretty painful, sucking out a lot of the life of the story in favor of effects shots and over-emphasized moments, and the screenplay could easily have lost a good 20-30 minutes and tightened up the film immeasurably (let's be honest, is there any reason for this film to be nearly two and a half hours long?). But for all the film's flaws - its bloat, its often turgid sense of spectacle - you can't fault the impeccable casting, which really does wonders for the film. Given that we know how the film series turns out now, it seems beyond lucky that the film cast its three young leads so well - whatever else you can say about the films, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint really bring their characters to rich life so much that it's hard to imagine the series without them. But the adult cast is no less critical - while I think everyone loved the choice of Alan Rickman as Snape, there's a slew of smaller choices that work just as well - Coltrane brings Hagrid to life wonderfully, and John Hurt's brief cameo as Ollivander adds an air of mystery and menace that the film really needs at points. Yeah, the effects are pretty badly dated; yeah, the script is too slavishly faithful and doesn't really breathe enough; yeah, Columbus is too focused on spectacle and not enough on the character. But there's great moments here, and the casting and some of the production design is good enough that I understand a bit better exactly how the films became so beloved.
- Josh Mauthe
- Josh Mauthe
RSS Feed
